Yeah, that's right. Capitalist Preservation rubs elbows with the biggies in the battle to expose the absolute weightlessness of Progressive logic.
We not only post pictures of half naked women. We write our own content.
.............................................
29 sitting Wisconsin state judges have signed the Scott Walker recall petition
By Rob Janicki
The following should not come as a surprise in today's highly partisan political environment. What makes it note worthy is that it involves sitting judges expressing an implied disdain for a politician of the opposite party, while claiming it is their right to express themselves under the 1st Amendment and their right to vote. So, what am I talking about?
29 sitting Wisconsin state judges have signed the Scott Walker recall petition forcing a recall election this year in Wisconsin. All the judges, by virtue of their signing the recall petition, have to be considered Democrats. Thank goodness none of the judges signing the recall petition are on the appellate bench or the state supreme court. The 29 judges signing the recall petition claim that such action is not a violation of the state's judicial code of ethics. However, some Wisconsin jurists, when questioned, expressed the idea that such signings might give the impression of bias by those judges.
A problem appears to have arisen with one specific judge having signed the recall petition.
Green Bay Press Gazette
[...] Dane County Judge David Flanagan has drawn the lion's share of the scrutiny after issuing a temporary restraining order March 6 against a Walker-backed voter ID law without disclosing his support of the recall. [,,,]
[...] As for Flanagan — who issued his ruling in the voter ID case on March 6 — the decision whether his actions merit further examination lies with the judicial commission.
Alexander said the commission has received a "barrage" of complaints seeking an investigation of Flanagan. The commission is not scheduled to meet until the end of April, so barring a special meeting it will decide then whether to launch an investigation.
Flanagan did not respond to a written request for comment. He had been randomly selected by a computer to hear the voter ID case. [...] [...] The state's Code of Judicial Conduct says judges cannot "participate in the affairs, caucuses, promotions, platforms, endorsements, conventions, or activities of a political party or of a candidate for partisan office.
The code, which is part of state statute, also bars judges from being a member of a political party, endorsing candidates or soliciting funds for political parties. It contains general admonitions to avoid "the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities." [...]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Although this action by 29 Wisconsin judges may not have been specifically prohibited in the state's code of judicial conduct, it gives the impression of some basis of questionable impropriety and it also questions the judgment of those judges and their impartiality going forward in time.
This was really to be expected. I've seen little evidence over the years that democrats as a whole support the federal constitution and certainly not state constitutions when they stand in way of their agenda"s. With them its always the "ends justifies the means". They see themselves as the new order and their goal is simply to replace the old order and such things as constitutions often stand in the way.
ReplyDeleteReally bad. Smacks of bias, and how does that translate into court cases that are brought by prosecutors into those courts. My husband, who was a street cop for 28 years in LA, claims that approximately 75% of Prosecutors are conservative and that the majority of judges and Public Defenders are liberal. Let us hope that the people of Wisconsin realize what a successful recall would mean for them and Wisconsin's future.
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more with your comments, as they mirror mine. Everything to a liberal/progressive is relative to their achieving their goal to reduce individual liberty and freedom in the name of the collective in order to redistribute wealth for "social justice". If you or I were to do what government does in redistribution of wealth, we would be subject to criminal prosecution and penalties under law, often resulting in imprisonment.
ReplyDeleteI don't see where a judge, Flanagan in this case, can actually rule on a law passed by the legislature. Are they not supposed to rule on such laws as they are applied, and not on the validity of the law?
ReplyDeleteAs such, only after a person was refused the privilege of voting due to a lack of ID could a judge even get involved. Or am I out in left field?
PS: Kudos on the elbow rubbin' but try to keep it at that! ;-)
A troika of liars: Cops, lawyers and judges.
ReplyDeleteApparently Flanaghan was only involved in issuing a temporary restraining order prohibiting the implementation of a Walker backed law. TRO's are usually issued when a trial court judge feels there is reasonable evidence that a law may be invalid on its face. A TRO is just that, temporary, usually 10 to 14 days to give the parties involved time to review the basis of the TRO and then seek an Appellate Court review. In Flanaghan's situation, he may have used his power from the bench to give the Democrats a "time out" or a delaying tactic.
ReplyDelete